Minutes of April 25, 2006
This meeting was held at
Donald Anderson, Clerk; Michael
Przybylowicz and Thomas Morrissette (arrived late due to traffic).
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the request for waiver
of site plan. The Board reviewed signage
presented by Shapes A Salon and upon motion duly made and seconded, voted
unanimously (4-0) to approve the non-illuminated ground sign measuring 20.5
square feet, conditioned upon obtaining approval and a permit from the Building
Inspector. The sign will not have an LED
display or a reader board.
Chairman,
Louis Calabrese read a Request for Waiver of
Site Plan from Red Carpet Nails to open a nail salon in an existing building
located at
Upon motion duly made and
seconded, the Board voted unanimously (4-0) to approve the request for waiver
of site plan approval. The Board
reviewed signage presented by Red Carpet Nails and upon motion duly made and
seconded, voted unanimously (4-0) to approve a non-illuminated sign, measuring
42.4 square feet, conditioned upon obtaining approval and a permit from the
Building Inspector. The sign will not
have an LED display or a reader board.
Ms.
Macdonald told the Board that Barry Christman has provided a petition for town
meeting that
Mr.
Anderson said he felt that it looks better and likes the way it is. Ms. Richards said the entire sidewalk and
section of the driveway would be on town property and if the town were required
to dig up the sidewalk for some unknown reason - the driveway would be patched,
would the town then be liable for
surfacing the entire driveway?
Mr. Anderson said if the sidewalk needs to be replaced, unless there is
some type of utility underneath the sidewalk then would not have an interest –
it would be up to the homeowner to take care of the sidewalk in front of
his/her home.
Mr. Christman
said he has laid the sidewalks this way in most of his projects. Ms. Richards asked why was the plan showing
the sidewalks through the driveways? Mr.
Christman said it was something that slipped through the cracks and put on the
plan inadvertently. Ms. Richards said
the issue was really that it was going against the plan. Mr. Przybylowicz asked Mr. Christman if it
was a smooth transition from the sidewalk into the driveway. Mr. Christman said yes. Mr.
Przybylowicz asked if the transition was in violation of
Miscellaneous
Ms.
Macdonald advised the Board that the DPW is not recommending any streets for
acceptance for Town Meeting except for Article 30,
Ms.
Macdonald asked the Board who would be presenting the official map at town
meeting as well as the by-law for the sign language. Ms. Richards stated that she would present
the sign proposal and Mr. Anderson would present the map.
The Board re-organized the officers and upon motion duly
made and seconded, Donald Anderson was elected Clerk of the Planning
Board. Upon motion duly made and
seconded, Louis Calabrese was elected Chairman of the Planning Board, and upon
motion duly made and seconded, Marilyn Richards was elected Vice Chairman of
the Planning Board, all for the 2006-2007 year.
Request for Waiver of Site Plan Review – Starbucks
Coffee
Ms. Macdonald told the Board that Starbucks had provided a sign rendering
that did not meet the actual building itself so she would like the board hold
off until someone from Starbucks could be present to discuss the request, the
Board agreed to wait.
The Board reviewed the ANR for creation of two new parcels,
Parcel 6-C containing approximately 13.149 acres and Parcel 6-D, consisting of
approximately 1.987 acres. Parcel 6-C
has proper frontage on
The Board endorsed the subdivision
plans for John Hasley regarding Lori Lane Extension.
At this time, Thomas Morrissette
arrived at the meeting.
Proposed
With the Board’s approval, Ms.
Richards volunteered to lead the discussion as she had researched the issues at
length. The Board discussed the proposed by-law for town meeting and had the
following concerns:
·
The amendment to
Business District 3.33 - Limitations on size of retail
buildings in the business
district only
·
1500 feet distance
between retail parcels
·
Maximum square footage
in a business district 65,000 square feet
·
Outside storage square
footage and how will it be determined
·
Gross area of a
building on a single parcel of land or 2 or more parcels of
land within 1,500 feet
·
Dimensional
regulations
The members were concerned with
the by-law as it is being presented.
Ms. Richards said that she feels
this by-law will work and that the issue of the size of the property really is
not important. She further stated that
if the structure is limited to 65,000 square feet in size with the property being
large enough to have the required 1,500 feet between buildings, there could be
another 65,000 square foot structure on the same property. She also reminded the Board that this
limitation is only for retail and that there are other uses that could occur
within the business district that are not retail that would not be affected by
this limitation.
Mr. Morrissette said the strength
of a business zoned piece of property is the retail aspect and that is where
the value comes from. Ms. Richards said she was looking at it as an opportunity
for the town to have a say on how we want to see East Longmeadow grow.
Mr. Morrissette said he was not
saying he does not want to see a 65,000 square foot building limitation, rather
he was not comfortable with the requirement of having to have 1,500 feet in
between buildings. He continued by
stating that if one owned a lot that measured 1,500 feet in length and you tell
the person the most they could put on it is one 65,000 retail building, a great
deal of financial value is being taken away from that owner.
Mr. Przybylowicz also agrees that 3,000 feet
between buildings is excessive, but he thinks 100 feet is too little and if
push came to shove, he would be more comfortable with 1,500 foot restriction
than with the100 foot restriction.
Ms. Richards added that they she
agreed and was not comfortable with the 3,000 feet limitation but felt that
1,500 feet was reasonable.
Mr. Calabrese said if someone is
in the business district the other thing to take into consideration is that the
business district requires 100 feet of frontage so 1,500 feet in between two
buildings becomes another problem. He
said as far as the parking goes the depth of the property is still there to
account for how the parking is handled and he thinks the size of the building
should be the concern not the distance in between the buildings.
Mr. Morrissette said he believes
it has to go to the Attorney General and he thinks if there was a by-law that
says a building cannot be built within 1,500 of another building he does not think
it would pass and that the AG would throw out the entire by-law. He reminded the Board members that 1,500 feet
is more than a ¼ mile. Ms. Richards said
that the Board should put a question mark on that issue and further discuss it
later.
Ms. Richards said that table 3-2,
table of dimensional regulations would require that an additional column be
added to the current by-law that would address the maximum building size
limitations for anything that was used within the business district. She said it says for any permitted use except
retail use, no maximum square footage.
For retail use 65,000 square foot maximum building size for retail. She added that the table also addresses a
residential use that has no limitation for square footage. She said storage and
sale of used motor vehicles has a maximum size of 65,000 square feet subject to
section 7.35 of the by-law. Ms. Richards
advised the Board that she had suggested to Mr. Driscoll that he add this to
the table simply because the storage of motor vehicles falls under a different section
of the by-law and under Special Permit.
Mr. Calabrese asked, in Section B,
what if someone owned a parcel of land on one side of a street and another
parcel across the street and they want to put another retail structure at the
parcel across the street and selling goods, services or merchandise? He asked how would it affect the owner - as he
or she would be the common owner – would they be penalized by the 1,500 foot
rule? The other board members answered
yes and Ms. Richards said her opinion was no because they are not contiguous
pieces of property.
Mr. Calabrese asked town counsel
for his opinion. Attorney Donahue said
if you go to the foot note where it specifies the definition of “common owner”,
it is talking about a common owner of a retail business and not the ownership
of the property. He said that someone
could own one parcel and own another parcel across the street - they would be
allowed to put up a 65,000 square building with Staples occupying one and
Office Max occupying the other as long as those two businesses were not
somehow in common ownership.
Mr. Anderson asked what if Office
Max was bought out by Staples in the future?
Attorney Donahue said then there would be an issue and the members need
to understand that when they deal with the by-law for individual projects. Mr. Calabrese said that was why he keeps on
going back to the 1,500 feet requirement between buildings issue. He continued by stating that it seems like it
is serving no purpose at all.
Ms. Richards moved onto the
industrial district portion of the proposal and said that the information was
basically the same as in the business district regarding the 65,000 square foot
building size and the 1,500 feet between structures that are owned by the same entity. She also mentioned that there is a footnote
that references the definition of common owner which is the same as in
the business district. She said the
table for dimensional regulations for the industrial district had changed
slightly. Ms. Richards stated that in
the industrial district table there would be another category for maximum
building size limitation and under any permitted use that would be based on the
65,000 square feet limitation for retail.
She said it comes down two issues, the one issue dealing with exterior
storage and the second issue being the 1,500 feet requirement between buildings.
Mr. Przybylowicz said that he did
not have an issue with either of the two and Ms. Richards said that she did not
have any issues either. Mr. Anderson
said he did not have an issue with the first one but was struggling with the second requirement of 1,500 feet between
buildings. He felt that they need to be
sensitive to creating a unique situation if someone acquires another company
which may put them in the common ownership category.
Mr. Morrissette said the problem
that he is having is to take someone’s piece of property and tell them they cannot
develop the rest of it because they do not have 1,500 feet between
buildings. Even though they have plenty
of land in the current rules & regulations – this would amount to a huge
taking. Mr. Morrissette feels that the
1,500 foot division is putting a lot of restrictions on a piece of property as
well as the fact that they were dealing with ownership. He continued by stating that he does not
understand the reason they cannot make the space between buildings
smaller. He said two buildings cannot
have the same business owned by the same people so what is wrong with making the
distance between the buildings less in width?
Mr. Anderson stated that he
believed that this by-law was to prevent “white elephants”. Mr. Morrissette stated that abandoned
buildings are usually re-fabricated – there are no blighted buildings in East
Longmeadow, however, he understood Mr. Anderson’s point.
Ms. Richards stated that the
Center Village project will have approximately 67,000 feet of retail space with
the combined structures including Rocky’s.
She added that was not a small development and there are concerns about
the impact of this development. Think
about 1,500 feet away, another development just like it – would be much too
much. She added that she did not agree
that it would disenfranchise someone’s ability to use their property because of
the other uses allowed. Mr. Morrissette
added that one could put up an office building, however, if the property owner
does not want to have that use, it is still preventing him from using his
property as he so desires.
Mr. Morrissette added that the
members needed to keep in mind the fact that Rocky’s plaza would not be allowed
to be built under this by-law because they own the Health Trax – Ms. Richards
stated no, it was not retail. Mr. Morrissette
asked why could one not have two structures on a piece of property when it
could accept three of them under the current by-laws? If you have a piece of property like the one
that Stop & Shop is on right now, which is 120,000 square feet on 13 acres
– (two 65,000 square feet of building) on that property – if the building was
demolished today, under this by-law – you would not be able to building two
buildings – only one. Mr. Morrissette
stated that shows that the town would be taking something of value away from
the property owner because they would not have the 1,500 feet between the
buildings. He stated that conceivably, one could put two 65,000 square foot
buildings on that property (with proper parking), but because there would not be 1,500 feet
between the buildings, the town would now have taken 65,000 square feet of
retail value away from the owner of the property. He added that it would be the same as with
the Big Y property – they can never expand under this by-law. He added that the 1,500 feet between
buildings puts a lot of restrictions on a property owner – especially if they
cannot be under the same owner, he did not understand why the members could not
make the distance between buildings smaller.
Ms. Richards said she feels the
purpose of the by-law is to restrict the size of retail establishments only
with the idea of lessening the impact of already overly congested corridors in
our community. Mr. Morrissette added,
but not by taking the rights away from those who own the property right
now. Ms. Richards stated that there are
other uses – retail is not necessarily the use of the entire district. Mr. Morrissette stated that he understood,
however, if one has a “retail” zoned piece of property on a main drag – the
ideal – the highest use value for that property would be retail – they could
build an office building, however, if the owner wanted to use it as retail,
they will not be able to.
Mr. Calabrese said from his
understanding there are 3 members that go along with the 65,000 square foot
building size and 3 members that are having a problem with the1,500 feet
requirement between building with two members not seeing a problem with that. Mr. Calabrese added that the person who wrote
the by-law must have had something in mind when he added this distance between
building requirements.
Ms. Richards stated that with all
the information for controlling large structures, it was understandable that
the 1,500 feet between buildings would make a difference. She continued by adding that there would be a
huge amount of retail space with only 100 feet between buildings and the by-law
would have accomplished nothing. Mr.
Calabrese added that one was still talking about a parcel of land that is not
restricted. As a matter of fact, he
added, the larger the piece of property, the more restrictive and unfair it is
to the owner – that is a lot of space.
Mr. Przybylowicz stated it was not a lot of space on a 50 acre
parcel. Mr. Calabrese stated that the
town does not have such a piece of property.
Mr. Anderson said he felt that
from a planning point of view he thinks that everyone agrees to a 65,000 square
feet limitation on the building. He
added that he felt the Board should make a recommendation at town meeting that
they support the 65,000 square foot of building with the understanding that
they significantly reduce the 1,500 feet requirement between buildings. Mr.
Anderson added that he felt 100 was too small, Ms. Richards asked how about
1,200? Mr. Anderson stated he was
thinking about 500 – Ms. Richards stated that was too small – Mr. Morrissette
stated he did not think so. .
Mr. Calabrese stated they were
picking numbers out of the air and that is why he said that if the Planning
Board had proposed this by-law, they would have done much more research and
spent more time fine tuning the language – like they do all the other
by-laws. Now he added, that the Board is
being looked at to make recommendations before town meeting and he is fearful
of litigation. Mr. Calabrese also stated
that he cannot understand the logic of the writer of the by-law. Mr. Anderson asked Mr. Calabrese what his
instincts were – Mr. Calabrese stated that he felt that if the intent was to
not have the same business have another building that is close by – then I
would say that 1,500 feet would accomplish that but to such a degree that it
was completely unnecessary. Mr.
Calabrese added that he did not feel that 100 feet would work because what kind
of building would you walk out of and in 100 feet walk into another building –
other than like the Worcester area where Spags and all the outlets were.
Ms. Richards asked what the intent
of the by-law was? Mr. Morrissette added
that she had stated that 500 feet between buildings was not the intent of the
by-law and asked Ms. Richards what her thought of the intent of the by-law
was? She responded that her belief was
to create limitations on retail establishments – retail only not business or
industrial uses – and to encourage people to utilize their land more
efficiently – such as mixed uses – 100 feet – 500 feet – the impact of the
total would be more dramatic than the 65,000 square foot building would
be. She added that the Board was
getting caught up with trying to make certain projects fit – and that the Board
needed to focus on what was best for the town. Mr. Morrissette stated that he could not
support the limitation of 1,500 feet between buildings – there is no piece of
property in town that would work on. He
further stated that the reason he suggested 100 feet was that is what in a
planned business development now, that is the side yard. He also feels that 100 feet between the side
yard (lot line) and the building which would provide 200 feet between buildings
– why would that not be acceptable especially if those two buildings could not
be occupied by the same owner? Mr.
Morrissette continued by stating that, in essence, you are restricting the size
of the building to 65,000 square feet and if the area between the buildings is
reduced to 500 feet, we would not be taking anything away from the landowner
and we could possibly use this by-law and then he could possibly support the
by-law. However, if they stick with
1,500 feet between buildings, that is too restrictive and he would not support
it.
Mr. Przybylowicz asked if Mr.
Morrissette found the 1,500 restriction for ownership but 1,500 feet between
buildings. . . . . Mr. Morrissette
stated that he did not have a problem with 1,500 feet between ownerships . . .
. Ms. Richards stated that the by-laws have periodically changed to meet the
current changes . . . . restrictions already in place and people are controlled
by the existing by-laws and she does not see anything wrong with having these restrictions
in place . . Mr. Anderson stated that
they are not changing the size of the lot . . . most of the existing businesses
today cannot add to their buildings . . not dealing with area coverage at all.
Mr. Morrissette asked if the
by-law states that he could have two (2) 65,000 square foot buildings on one
piece of property within less than 1,500 feet if they are not in common
ownership? Ms. Richards stated yes,
“controlled by a common owner”. Mr. Morrissette
continued by stating, that if the business renting the building is a different
entity . . then the 1,500 does not come into play. Mr. Anderson added . . . if you have a Sam’s
Club next to a Costco – both of them 65,000 square feet - 200 feet apart from each other because they
are not under the same owner. No 1,500
feet between buildings unless they fall under the “common ownership rule”. Mr. Calabrese added that for example, he owns
the property and he wanted to build a 65,000 square foot building and wanted to
put a Big Y on it . . . and he wanted to put another 65,000 square foot
building on the property as a Home Goods . . . . he could do that and not have
to keep 1,500 feet between buildings.
That would make the situation more palatable for a landowner otherwise
he would be penalized severely.
Mr. Morrissette asked if they
could get a clarification on that? Mr.
Morrissette stated to Attorney Donahue that the premise he was going under was
– under b. you can have two (2) 65,000
square foot buildings on the same parcel with less than 1,500 feet between them
with the same owner of the two buildings as long as the businesses inside were
not of common ownership. Mr. Donahue
stated that he believed that is how the by-law reads. Mr. Morrissette thanked him and added that if
the Board was interpreting this by-law this way and they do not have to worry
about other boards coming up and interpreting it in a different manner, he
believes that is how it reads . . . . . .
Mr. Przybylowicz read section 1
and thought it did not apply, however, Mr. Anderson stated that you must use
both sections to do the calculations.
Mr. Morrissette asked Attorney Donahue if they were correct. Attorney Donahue stated that the last sentence
in paragraph 1 pulls both section a. and section b. into how this should apply.
Mr. Calabrese asked Attorney
Donahue if the definition was clear enough as far as a by-law goes because the
Board wants a by-law that is going to make sense. Attorney
Donahue said one of the ways to clarify what is meant by the by-law is for
the Board to make the determination part of the discussion on the record so
then you could refer back to the minutes of town meeting to clarify at least
your interpretation is there. It is not
a lot but it is one way to debate back and forth as to what the issue is, if
there is one, and what the Board’s interpretation was at the time of the
hearing.
Mr. Calabrese stated that he hoped
that anyone reading this by-law would go on to section b and not stop at
section a. - - it does not make any sense.
Mr. Morrissette stated that he would not have a problem with having
1,500 feet between each building as long as they are occupied by the same
owners - - the land can be owned by the same, however, the tenant cannot. Mr. Morrissette stated that as long as the
Board was sure of that he did not have a problem with the by-law.
Ms. Macdonald asked the Board if
they would like to meet before town meeting and she could prepare some type of
documentation stating the Board’s recommendations and interpretation of the
by-law proposal to report at town meeting.
The members agreed to meet before the town meeting and asked her to
prepare a statement. Mr. Morrissette
stated that he did have an issue that the by-law could be construed differently
and would feel better if a statement as to the Board’s interpretation was
prepared. Mr. Calabrese asked Attorney
Donahue to work with Robyn to prepare this narrative. Mr. Morrissette asked if the Board wanted to
talk about outside sales? Ms. Richards
stated she was happy with it. Mr.
Morrissette stated that he felt it was a problem – has been for years – Ms.
Richards stated that she believed that this mostly occurs when people violate
the parking plans – it is not going to impact on existing businesses. This needs to be designated on the plan and
approved under the process. Mr.
Morrissette asked how the members dealt with the Planned Business Development
with Rocky’s outside storage– it was not addressed. Mr. Calabrese stated that there is not a
by-law that allows business owners to do this, that they are doing it casually,
and the issue is not enforced. He added
that now with this by-law, there will be a legal reason not to store product
outside – the building inspector would have to enforce it. He added that now it would be very clear that
the business owners would be in violation.
Mr. Morrissette stated that they
would not be in violation unless they came before the Board with a modification
– then they would have to show it on the plan or be in violation. He continued by stating that his question was
. . . if a business came in for a modification of the strip mall or Starbucks
in the new plaza . . . if there is some kind of wall change that Special Permit
comes into play, they would have to deal with that at that time.
Attorney Donahue stated that the
outside retail area must be added to the calculation of their buildings for
total square footage. This must be
enforced fairly however.
With no further discussion, and upon
motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously (5-0) to recommend
the by-law at town meeting, based on the interpretation as section 1a and 1b be
read collectively and addressed at town meeting.
There being no further business
and upon motion duly made and seconded, the Board voted unanimously to close
the public meeting at 9:00 p.m.
For
the Board,
Donald
J. Anderson, Clerk